Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
P.F.Talbot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this suspicion due to various governing bodies catching people from time to time? When was the last time anyone really thought about drug use in major sports? It's certainly higher than in track and field but people don't seem to care. Mark McGuire was caught using an anabolic steroid during his 70 home run season. It wasn't banned by baseball so no one cared much and in fact, it led to sales of the product in question goign through the roof. Another difference between the major team sports and track and field is the emphasis on head to head competition versus marks. If 90% of American football players are on the juice, they'll be bigger, stronger and faster, but the fans will still see a good competition and won't really notice the difference because there is no absolute standard of performance - only relative measures. With the emphasis on marks and records in track and field, it's not the same sort of zero-sum game. Jason ___ Jason BlankHopkins Marine Station Enloe HS '92, Duke '96, Stanford ?? Oceanview Boulevard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pacific Grove, CA 93950 He is the Emperor. Ethiopia is a country racked by Aids, famine and war and Gebrselassie is their one true success story. He travels the country, giving out and receiving respect wherever he goes. -- Jos Hermens, on Haile Gebrselassie, Olympic champion at 1m ___
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
on 20/8/01 10:01 AM, Prof. Uri Goldbourt at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A careful look at Yegorva's achievement last year will demonstarte that her progress was less enormous than many an athlete in the past, who still bask in glory - Florence Griffith-Joyner a988 amazing breakthrough first and foremost, but not only her What I and others (including a prominent figure in world athletics such as Jonathan Edwards) are concerned with is that she is singled out and demonized among , most likely, a non-negligible number of athletes. We have yet to see or read such organized protest against Merlene Ottey who was acquitted on a mild technicality, or Linford Christie who escaped in his skeen teeth from disqualification in Seoul 1988 ( among vote majority, wrote Sebastian Coe) and who, after being robbed of a bronze medal in the 1991 world champs in Tokyo [Japanese starters permitting Denis Mitchel to run on, despite an obvious steal) , improved no less enormously then Yegorova and eventually was disqualified last year. Is Ben Johnson a mediocre athlete boosted by drug use and Christie one of Britain's darling and greatest athletes? Not a tough question. Johnson was caught and admitted drug use under oath, Christie was eventually caught and served a two year ban when he was retired. Did Christie take drugs when he was at his peak?. British libel laws are so unfairly biased towards the plaintiff that to accuse Christie in the British media of taking drugs was to expect a lawsuit. John McVicar tried and lost - before Christie was banned for nadrolone. I don't know if McVicar is trying to recover the damages he had to pay, although I have heard talk. You say Yegerova was demonised and singled out among most likely a non-negligible number of athletes. I assume you mean that a lot of athletes take EPO or some drugs. Yegerova is demonised because at the World Championships she was the only one that the charge can be levelled at with certainty. She was caught and got off on a technicality. That's the nub, until an athlete is caught it is all suspicion. And until you have proof it is unfair to accuse someone of using drugs. It may seem obvious but you need proof and it was there in Yegerova's case. Are you saying that Florence Griffth-Joyner's amazing improvement did not attract a lot of suspicion? If you are you did not read the magazine I worked for, the magazine which competed against us or the South African magazine which printed before and after pohotgraphs of her. Nor were you in Seoul where her 200m run was greeted by the media with almost total cynicism. There was also a lot of protest at Ottey getting off and a lot (subject to the strictures mentioned above) of Christie. His improvement was remarked upon not so much after 1991 and Tokyo when it was not so enormous (he went from 9.92 in 1991 to 9.96 in 1992, which even using the convoluted argument you employ in your post cannot be called an improvement), but when he went from 10.42 in 1985 to 10.04 a year later. He was in his mid-20s at that time and the reason given was that he stopped partying and started training properly. You seem to suggest that because I'm British I'm biaised in favour of British athletes. Think again. The point about Yegerova is that she was caught, Christie received the benefit of the doubt in Seoul. That may be a bad thing, you choose, but you cannot argue against the fact that we KNOW Yegerova is a cheat and we just suspect that others are. Randall Northam
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
Hi! I quite frankly don't understand what is the fuss about all this drug/non-drug business. In a society where everyone is on drugs, from recreational purposes, medical purposes and even to get through the stresses of every day life, I don't see any moral to ask these athletes to behave as if they lived in a different world. This drug war that the IAAF and IOC carry out is like the US drug war. It is lost from the beginning. And please spare me the effects of a lifetime of drug taking. Many drugs help us and nobody is thinking twice about taking them when they need. The Florence Joyner case happened because she took way too many drugs without any proper medical control. I don't see the same happening to the likes of Koch, Kratochvilova, etc (assuming that all took their fair amount of drugs). They all seem alive and well... I agree with Michael Contopoulos when he says that the majority, or at least many, of the top level athletes are on something illegal. Yegorova, Said Sief, Longo... I mean come on people... Gebreselassie, Kimathi and El G all may test negative, and all may be legit, BUT PLEASE don't tell me that Yegorova is doing something unique here. Of course this cannot be proven... But my point is 'who gives a shit'!? Is the same as you asking to your bank to test your bank manager for drugs! The pressures in society nowadays are so high that the drug problem does not lie in urine, blood and high tech tests, but in the way people live and what they expect. Moreover, nobody wants to see everyone suspended and unattainable records... I just remember Heike Henkel saying that whoever jumps over 2.03 is on drugs and she jumped over that height many times!! The problem with Yegorova is that she was caught and she has no 'friends' in the media/sponsors to support her. I remember a lot of doping cases where the media was VERY sympathetic and comprehensive. As long as you come out, cry and say that you are going to change - the true american way of solving this situations. But Yegorova has done none of that and on top of all she falls in the pathetic category of 'east block women machine that is half men, half woman'! I guess there is no salvation for her. What are the comments of this list about the IAAF behaviour in this story!? The story should've never come out. They were the ones that created the whole confusion. How come news like this come out in the open? Someone is clearly interested is destroying Yegorova. This is the only thing we can be sure of. I agree with Uri Goldbourt. Radcliffe and the BBC at edmonton made a huge fuss about Yegorova with special reports and mickey mouse possibilities of a eventual protest. This was ridiculous and had a touch of pathetic patriotism (or 'anti-russianism'). Finally, as Michael Contopoulos put no one is about to convince me that this is a clean sport. So let's work with what we have and not with what we wish. Miguel
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
You say Yegerova was demonised and singled out among most likely a non-negligible number of athletes. I assume you mean that a lot of athletes take EPO or some drugs. Yegerova is demonised because at the World Championships she was the only one that the charge can be levelled at with certainty. She was caught and got off on a technicality. To be 100% accurate, we should say she is the only one who's test was improperly made public. There may very well be other times that only the urine test has been done and it was appropriately kept secret. Don't get me wrong - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, most of us (myself included) will believe that it is. The urine test is not pretty certain by itself. But legally, procedure was not followed, and the fact that it was made public when it shouldn't have been is a lose-lose situation for our whole sport. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
Perhaps I am as one-eyed as Uri, but I think he has made a very valid point. Merlene Ottey went on to compete in Sydney after testing positive for nandrolone, but then being reintstated by IAAF due to technical errors. The only controversy was whether or not she should be allowed to run the relay, which meant some other runner will be left off the relay team. There was never a question on whether she has a moral right to compete in Sydney. There were no threats of boycotts, no scandals and no Nandrolone Cheats Out signs. Certainly no booing from the stands, or even from the media boxes. In fact media presented her story in positive light, as someone who I think made the final in 4 consequitive Olympics or something like that. And even though Radcliffe had critisized IAAF's decision to reinstate Yegorova, I never heard her speak out in similar fashion against her own federation's decision to clear Richardson, Christie, Walker and Cadogan (here I mean UK athletics). She did admit she was critical of Moorcroft's handling of Richardson case in one of the interviews, but it was quite subdued critisism, especially compared to her Edmonton campaign. Maybe Diane Modahl's case and the bankruptcy of Brittish Athletic had something to do with it, you think? In addition to Radcliffe's admission that she considers Dieter Baumann innocent (he was set up, according to her), it's hard to believe her that she would protest just as actively if the test results leak concerned the brittish, instead of the russian athlete. Makes me wonder if the test result leaks, even after only A sample has been tested, will become a standard practice, or will the leak be up to the sole discretion of the tester? Also - whatever happened to Yegorova's B-sample? The tests were delayed for a long time after which the tests has been rendered incolnclusive. Does it mean they were really inconclusive? I always assumed there should be two scenarios - positive or negative. Does it mean the test was really positive and the IAAF didn't want to release it because of their reinstatement decision? Then why did they announced that the B-sample WILL be tested, and even named a deadline? Or does it mean the test was negative and the IAAF didn't want to release it because they didn't want to compromise the validity of the test itself? Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I do recall that the urine test wasn't allowed to stand on it's own due to the findings (by the test developers themselves) that it may produce too many false-positives. Oleg. PS: the correct spelling is Yegorova, not Yegerova or Yegorva. on 20/8/01 10:01 AM, Prof. Uri Goldbourt at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A careful look at Yegorva's achievement last year will demonstarte that her progress was less enormous than many an athlete in the past, who still bask in glory - Florence Griffith-Joyner a988 amazing breakthrough first and foremost, but not only her What I and others (including a prominent figure in world athletics such as Jonathan Edwards) are concerned with is that she is singled out and demonized among , most likely, a non-negligible number of athletes. We have yet to see or read such organized protest against Merlene Ottey who was acquitted on a mild technicality, or Linford Christie who escaped in his skeen teeth from disqualification in Seoul 1988 ( among vote majority, wrote Sebastian Coe) and who, after being robbed of a bronze medal in the 1991 world champs in Tokyo [Japanese starters permitting Denis Mitchel to run on, despite an obvious steal) , improved no less enormously then Yegorova and eventually was disqualified last year. Is Ben Johnson a mediocre athlete boosted by drug use and Christie one of Britain's darling and greatest athletes? Not a tough question. Johnson was caught and admitted drug use under oath, Christie was eventually caught and served a two year ban when he was retired. Did Christie take drugs when he was at his peak?. British libel laws are so unfairly biased towards the plaintiff that to accuse Christie in the British media of taking drugs was to expect a lawsuit. John McVicar tried and lost - before Christie was banned for nadrolone. I don't know if McVicar is trying to recover the damages he had to pay, although I have heard talk. You say Yegerova was demonised and singled out among most likely a non-negligible number of athletes. I assume you mean that a lot of athletes take EPO or some drugs. Yegerova is demonised because at the World Championships she was the only one that the charge can be levelled at with certainty. She was caught and got off on a technicality. That's the nub, until an athlete is caught it is all suspicion. And until you have proof it is unfair to accuse someone of using drugs. It may seem obvious but you need proof and it was there in Yegerova's case. Are you saying that Florence Griffth-Joyner's amazing improvement did not attract a lot of
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
In a message dated Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:36:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't get me wrong - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, most of us (myself included) will believe that it is. The urine test is not pretty certain by itself. But legally, procedure was not followed, and the fact that it was made public when it shouldn't have been is a lose-lose situation for our whole sport. gee, you mean maybe USATF had it right all along? gh
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
And please spare me the effects of a lifetime of drug taking. Many drugs help us and nobody is thinking twice about taking them when they need. I think 3 or 4 times before I take ANY drug, including aspirin or cold medicine. I know many other people who feel the same way. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support both sides of this issue, so it's a matter of what you choose to believe. Personally, I believe in drug testing. I can respect the fact that you don't. As I've said about other topics, I can't imagine I could convince you that my opinion is correct, nor do I expect to be convinced by anyone else that we should abandon testing. In one sense, this issue is as much a matter of what you believe as it is one of logic or fact. What are the comments of this list about the IAAF behaviour in this story!? The story should've never come out. They were the ones that created the whole confusion. How come news like this come out in the open? Someone is clearly interested is destroying Yegorova. This is the only thing we can be sure of. At least four different people have commented on that, including myself on two different occasions. Maybe you missed the comments. The IAAF botched this. I would not, however, assume that they are out to get Yegorova. It could very well be incompetence or miscommunication, not a calculated plan - we'll never know. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
Just so we understand each other Miguel. You are trying to tell us to let society dictate morality, fairness, and righteousness. That simply is irresponsible, and a very immature way to conduct yourself. It is the Well everyone else was doing it! attitude, that has cost more than a few kids some skin on their backsides. As far as I am concerned, these athletes live in our society and their morals and behaviour is pretty much influenced by the community. I am not defending the 'Well everyone else was doing it! attitude, but in a sport where new training methods, new shoes, new materials, new surfaces are quickly absorbed why not the new pharmacological innovations!? Why do we distrust so much science and all the sudden we want everyone to be clean! Despite the fact that the human species was NEVER 'clean'. If 'clean' is the motto, I want to go further, I want everyone to be bare feet! I do not need to convince you that the sport is clean, but I damn sure will convince of what is right and just, and proper. I am afraid I grew up in a post-modern society and the 'right, just and proper' motto has long disappear. And do not get it confused, it is not a drug war, it is an attempt to keep the nature of fair play in the sport. People are making mistakes in how to deal with the information, but they are making a mistake by dealing wit the issue. Fair play!? In a 'dog eat dog' world where is the fair play!? Why athletes should behave differently? I will assume you are a fan, I am a little more than that. And I will tell you, the sport is no where near as dirty as this list, or the track public likes to think it is. I am not saying it is squeaky-clean, but it is no where near as dirty as many want us to believe. Losers and cynics take that easy thought process. I am a cynic and I have no problems in admitting it. However, I wasn't born like this... Miguel
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
Miguel Gonçalves wrote: but in a sport where new training methods, new shoes, new materials, new surfaces are quickly absorbed why not the new pharmacological innovations!? Why do we distrust so much science and all the sudden we want everyone to be clean! Many of the perfromancing enhancing pharmacological innovations have unacceptable health risks. If we give the green light to using the same, then we would be promoting self-destructive behavior. By maintaining the ban on drugs we discourage the proliferation of their use. Because some people will use drugs, although prohibited, no more invalidates the wisdom of discouraging drug use than does the fact that some people commit murder would invalidate the wisdom of discouraging murder as social policy. I suggest that the use of drugs has resulted in a great drop of interest in our sport because if one suspects the champion of winning on the virtue of illegal substances, what is there to cheer about in his or her win?
RE: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
On that note, let me ask some questions that I have been asking myself regarding the drug situation in track and field .. Why are we testing ?? A: Too protect people from themselves and too make the sport fair for those who don't want to resort to drug use ... so they can theoretically compete on the oh-so-frequently-mentioned level playing field. Why are the substances that are on the banned list on the list ?? A: Because they aid you in athletics, or they are harmful to your health, usually both. Who is benefiting from the testing program ?? A: All athletes. They benefit by being protected from their own greed and their willingness to harm themselves in order to aid performance. Also those athletes who would prefer not to be forced to take drugs to compete. Who is being hurt by the testing program ?? A: See above. The testing program is so laughably bad that those same people are NOT protected from the things listed above. What has the sport gained from the testing program ?? A: See above. The program is so poor that it serves only as window-dressing and doesn't catch enough people obviously cheating. (See Ben Johnson admitting to drug use pre-1988, also see athletes who openly admitted to drug use, yet never tested positive). What has the testing program cost the sport ?? Is the sport fighting a self defeating and/or non-winnable fight ?? A: The glacial pace of adopting tests, the constant dragging their feet, the committees and finger-pointing, etc. that is what has ruined anything resembling winning the fight. Remind yourself: If 99% of athletes WERE using drugs, but only a handful were caught each year.. .. is this a travesty? Or is it just? If they are drug users ... and caught ... they are not scapegoats ... they are cheaters who were caught. I am in no way in favor of drug use .. However, I am definitely against those things which hurt the sport .. A: Want to stop things from hurting the sport? Start with the athletes who cheat. Stop them from cheating ... and no more black eye for the sport. If it is difficult, that doesn't mean you quit.
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, lehane wrote: Many of the perfromancing enhancing pharmacological innovations have unacceptable health risks. Arguably, so does competing clean at an elite level. It isn't healthy to break bones or tear muscles and ligaments. It isn't healthy to neglact friends and family in pursuit of training. It isn't healthy to become anorexic or suffer from psycholgical problems brought on fromt he stress of competing. When you are pushing your body to its limits you'ce already crossed over the lien of godo health. I'm not so sure these are any better than the risks associated with many banned drugs used under a docor's supervision. I suggest that the use of drugs has resulted in a great drop of interest in our sport because if one suspects the champion of winning on the virtue of illegal substances, what is there to cheer about in his or her win? Isn't this suspicion due to various governing bodies catching people from time to time? When was the last time anyone really thought about drug use in major sports? It's certainly higher than in track and field but people don't seem to care. Mark McGuire was caught using an anabolic steroid during his 70 home run season. It wasn't banned by baseball so no one cared much and in fact, it led to sales of the product in question goign through the roof. More strange is that many (if not most) of the things that are on the banned subsatnce list are things that are availible over the ocunter to non-athletes. If I can go and buy some steroids legally in the U.S., why can't athletes? In many countries, most steroids are legal without a prescription, yet athletes in those countries are banned from taking substances that are legal for their non-sporting countrymen. I agree that the rationale for banning substances is based on health concerns rather than ergogenic ones, but certainly under a doctor's supervision, many of them could be used without any significant side effects. Thsi is why Juan Antonio Samaranch argued for legalizing EPO and reviewing other drugs (hmm... a coincidence he is Spanish?). Paul
RE: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
I am in no way in favor of drug use .. However, I am definitely against those things which hurt the sport .. A: Want to stop things from hurting the sport? Start with the athletes who cheat. Stop them from cheating ... and no more black eye for the sport. If it is difficult, that doesn't mean you quit. This made me stop and think. Why is it that a bunch of European aristocrats get to choose what is and what is not cheating? Who has input into the banned substances list? Do the athletes have any input at all? I wonder what the list would look like if there were an athletes union (which there probably should be for other reaosns)? Paul
Re: t-and-f: Re: Yegorova - the only enormous improver?
Why are we testing ?? A: Too protect people from themselves and too make the sport fair for those who don't want to resort to drug use ... so they can theoretically compete on the oh-so-frequently-mentioned level playing field. How does one define this level plaing field?? See original playing field question .. Why are the substances that are on the banned list on the list ?? A: Because they aid you in athletics, or they are harmful to your health, usually both. How do they aid ?? I've read on the list about how they help you train, but can that not be done just by hard work ?? And therefore would that not be considered a natural thing ?? Who is benefiting from the testing program ?? A: All athletes. They benefit by being protected from their own greed and their willingness to harm themselves in order to aid performance. Also those athletes who would prefer not to be forced to take drugs to compete. Is it not both provincial and arrogant of us to protect them from themselves ??? Who is being hurt by the testing program ?? A: See above. The testing program is so laughably bad that those same people are NOT protected from the things listed above. Then why are we doing it ??? What has the sport gained from the testing program ?? A: See above. The program is so poor that it serves only as window-dressing and doesn't catch enough people obviously cheating. (See Ben Johnson admitting to drug use pre-1988, also see athletes who openly admitted to drug use, yet never tested positive). Then why are we doing it ??? What has the testing program cost the sport ?? Is the sport fighting a self defeating and/or non-winnable fight ?? A: The glacial pace of adopting tests, the constant dragging their feet, the committees and finger-pointing, etc. that is what has ruined anything resembling winning the fight. Then why are we doing it ??? Remind yourself: If 99% of athletes WERE using drugs, but only a handful were caught each year.. .. is this a travesty? Or is it just? If they are drug users ... and caught ... they are not scapegoats ... they are cheaters who were caught. YOu know I keep watching people use the word cheaters .. Who gets to define the word cheater ?? Why is everyone so preoccupied with cheating .. And (playing Devil's advocate) is it cheating if everyone is doing it ??? And it seems to me that the crux of it all lies in the answers to the questions What is cheating ?? and What is a level playing field ?? Because apparently teh whole issue of drug testing seems to revovle around these ideals .. WE say that the program doesn't work .. That it may never work .. That individuals asre harmed by it .. That the sport is harmed by it .. YEt we somehow want to blindly continue in pursiut of these two apparently unatainable ideals ?? Are we not chasing windmills ??? And yet I would never advocate drug use .. I am in no way in favor of drug use .. However, I am definitely against those things which hurt the sport .. A: Want to stop things from hurting the sport? Start with the athletes who cheat. Stop them from cheating ... and no more black eye for the sport. If it is difficult, that doesn't mean you quit. See above ... Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
